Alison krauss - austin city limits '92.

[Nolan]

Yesterday I was looking on youtube for some good music and I came across some videos from an Austin City Limits in 1992 featuring Alison Krauss with Adam Steffey, Tim Stafford, Ron Block and Barry Bales. #What a great band!

I didn't get into bluegrass until about 97 so I never got to see them perform until yesterday. Today I went out to watch again and they were pulled because of some copywrite thing. #LAME! #
I can't even find that concert for sale on the ACL web page.
Anyone know if it's available somewhere else?

[mandopete]

Yeah, I think a lot of things that are on you.wasting.time.tube <grins> get taken off as they are copyrighted material.

Does Austin City Limits sell videos? #I hadn't heard that.

FWIW, I saw some really neat Alison Krauss video with Vince Gill where they took turns doing each other's songs. #I think it was on CMT or something.

[AlanN]

I would think the infringement issue would be on the radar at Youtube, and I applaud proper enforcement. But man, what a great thing that site is - I searched on Slim Gaillard the other night and sure enough found him on a very grainy thing doing his MacVouty deal. I never knew what he looked like, or how he looked when he played guitar.

Also, have never seen Kenny Burrell live, but there he is doing 'Janine'.

[jefflester]

Does Austin City Limits sell videos? #I hadn't heard that.

There are some out, yes:
http://livefromaustintx.com/

You can get them from Amazon as well.

[Nolan]

I would think the infringement issue would be on the radar at Youtube, and I applaud proper enforcement. But man, what a great thing that site is -

I agreee, it's an awesome resource.

I bet one day it will be shut down or they'll make you pay like NAPSTER.

I got some great videos of Don Reno out there too... it's awesome. I hope it's around for a while longer.

Man, I'm bummed that video is gone... who was losing money by it being out there?

[mandolooter]

Im guessing Alison might not have been losing money because of it...maybe even making money if folks seen it and bought her cd's. It could very well have ACL that had it pulled...I think the own the copyrights. All just speculation on me'z part.

[MartinD_GibsonA]

they were pulled because of some copywrite thing. #LAME!

Nooooooooooo ... what's lame is your statement. #Not merely lame, but stupid. #The video belongs to someone else, simple as that. #Only the rightful owner may post it on YouTube. #Attitudes such as yours constantly amaze me. # # #

Don Smith

PS The word is "copyright".

[mandolooter]

Its getting harder to "own" stuff it seems with the digital age in full force...gosh i hope those vid's of me nude runnin thru the sprinklers at age 5 never surface...
Still copywrite is a legal and necessary issue and should be respected.

[hellindc]

Oh, yes, worship at the Holy Grail of property, forget that science and art advance by exchange. I don't believe in just ripping off anything and claiming it as your; I'm a published author. But if something like an old A.K. video is being "owned" by someone and preventing others from viewing it, count me in as one of the "lame" ones.

[Nolan]

they were pulled because of some copywrite thing. #LAME!

Nooooooooooo ... what's lame is your statement. #Not merely lame, but stupid. #The video belongs to someone else, simple as that. #Only the rightful owner may post it on YouTube. #Attitudes such as yours constantly amaze me. # # #

Don Smith

PS The word is "copyright".

What's lame about trying to find it somewhere so I can buy it? Is that an infringement on "Copyright" laws?
Speaking of righful owners I wonder how Martin and Gibson feel about your handle?

FWIW, I too am amazed at your attitude.

[allenhopkins]

C'mon, guys, be nice -- disagreement shouldn't result in dismemberment. Douse the flames.

[MartinD_GibsonA]

But if something like an old A.K. video is being "owned" by someone and preventing others from viewing it, count me in as one of the "lame" ones.

OK.

What's lame about trying to find it somewhere so I can buy it? #Is that an infringement on "Copyright" laws?

No, but that's not what you called lame. #You called it lame that the video was pulled over some copywrite (sic) thing. #That's not lame; that's respecting someone else's ownership!

Speaking of righful owners I wonder how Martin and Gibson feel about your handle?

They probably don't feel anything at all since 1) I'm not stealing anything they own and 2) neither they -- nor you -- have any proof that I'm referring to their companies.

Don Smith

[Caleb]

To quote Jeff Tweedy, "Art is not a piece of bread". Bread can be consumed and then it's gone; not so with art. All these "legal" issues of late on the issue of piracy are getting out of hand, in my view. I'm sure there were folks lining up to rip some copies of Alison's '92 performance and hit the black market with it. Please.

[Nolan]

I think most of us are on the same page here. Thanks for your input and if anyone finds that these shows are available somewhere shoot me a PM.

[MartinD_GibsonA]

To quote Jeff Tweedy, "Art is not a piece of bread". #Bread can be consumed and then it's gone; not so with art. #All these "legal" issues of late on the issue of piracy are getting out of hand, in my view. I'm sure there were folks lining up to rip some copies of Alison's '92 performance and hit the black market with it. Please.

Jeff Tweedy is free to believe anything he wants to about art ... but what he believes doesn't make it law. #If he wants to give away his music and give others the permission to do so, that's his right. #But what he wants to do with his art doesn't extend to everyone else's!

The issues aren't "legal"; they're legal. #If you don't believe they are, then buy a copy of my trio's CD and post our music on the Web. #I believe that would come under the "unauthorized distribution" provisions of the applicable laws. #And if the criminal penalties aren't deterrent enough, know that we might just sue you for everything we can get ... and we'll win, because the law is on our side.

If you think the legal issues are getting out of hand, then you're free to work to get the laws changed. #You're not free to violate them just because you don't like them, any more than you're free to speed just because you don't like the posted limit.

So folks aren't lining up to rip copies of an Alison Krauss performance that's 15 years old? #Then they certainly don't want copies of The Beatles' first appearance on Ed Sullivan, because that's about 40 years old. #And there's no way they'd want a copy of "Gone With the Wind"; why, it goes back to 1939. #It doesn't matter whether people are lining up or not; all that matters is that the owner of the material gets to decide how it's distributed. #It doesn't matter if NObody wants to buy it -- that still doesn't give you the right to post it without the owner's permission.

I think most of us are on the same page here.

Frankly, it doesn't matter how many of you are on the same page, because legally, you don't have a leg to stand on. #You can't distribute material that someone else owns ... period!! #It doesn't matter how much you like it. #It doesn't matter how much you think other people will like it. #It doesn't matter how much in demand you think it is. #If this material is owned by someone else, you have no more right to distribute it than you do to break into their car and steal their CD player. #What's so hard for some people to understand about this?

Don Smith

[Caleb]

Don, I'll give you this: you've got zeal on the matter. And yes, you are right, there are legal issues at hand, but like other laws they do and will continue to get broken. Are you just as zealous about someone who peels off those labels from their mattress? Or about someone who's fence may not quite be within code for the zoning board? Or do you honestly turn yourself in when you run a red light? The list goes on and on. If you do not have the same passion for these laws, then why the passion for the piracy laws? Right is right. Wrong is wrong. And the law is the law. Do we get to decide which ones are more important? I know I'm treading into dangerous waters here (though I have done it respectfully).

[MartinD_GibsonA]

Don, I'll give you this: you've got zeal on the matter. #And yes, you are right, there are legal issues at hand, but like other laws they do and will continue to get broken. Are you just as zealous about someone who peels off those labels from their mattress? #Or about someone who's fence may not quite be within code for the zoning board? #Or do you honestly turn yourself in when you run a red light? #The list goes on and on. #If you do not have the same passion for these laws, then why the passion for the piracy laws? #Right is right. #Wrong is wrong. #And the law is the law. Do we get to decide which ones are more important? #I know I'm treading into dangerous waters here (though I have done it respectfully).

Slacker,

Let me say first that yes, you're being very respectful and I appreciate it. #I guess I'm particularly zealous on this matter for two reasons:

1) I actually do play in a trio with a CD out, and while I don't expect anyone to ever post it to Kazaa or any of the other file sharing services, I'd be outraged if they did because I'd have had something stolen from me (and my bandmates). #It doesn't matter to me that we produced 500 CD four years ago and still have nearly 200 of them left ... it's the principle that someone else would distribute -- without our express permission -- something that we worked for and we paid for. #The fact that the video in question is 15 years old and that it's possible that nobody's buying it now is beside the point. #Someone -- AKUS, Rounder Records, Sony, other -- produced the work in question and owns the rights to its distribution. #What appalled me in the original post was that (it certainly appeared as if) Nolan was saying that pulling something from YouTube because it's copyrighted is lame, and I just find that sort of thinking unbelievable. #My guess is that people who feel that way have never had anything stolen from them. #Either that, or they don't think it's possible to own something -- control of your own work -- that you can't hold in your hands. #I'll admit that even to me, it feels different if it's not tangible ... but that doesn't make it different. #They rationzalize their behavior with such nonsensical arguments as "Nobody owns the arts; they're there to be spread and enjoyed" or "Nobody wants to buy this anyway" or "I took this with own camera that I sneaked into the show, so nobody can tell me I can't post it". #But the fact is that if it were their art and their distribution rights, they'd feel very different about it.

2) I believe the law is the law. #There are times when I think the law is wrong, but that doesn't give me the right to violate it. #As I wrote earlier, if you don't like it, then work to change it. #But you don't get to go around picking and choosing which laws you're going to obey and which you're going to disregard.

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

Don Smith

PS The consumer is allowed to remove the label, I don't know the zoning board codes on fences and I don't run red lights. # # #

[Caleb]

Don, I'll give you this: you've got zeal on the matter. #And yes, you are right, there are legal issues at hand, but like other laws they do and will continue to get broken. Are you just as zealous about someone who peels off those labels from their mattress? #Or about someone who's fence may not quite be within code for the zoning board? #Or do you honestly turn yourself in when you run a red light? #The list goes on and on. #If you do not have the same passion for these laws, then why the passion for the piracy laws? #Right is right. #Wrong is wrong. #And the law is the law. Do we get to decide which ones are more important? #I know I'm treading into dangerous waters here (though I have done it respectfully).

Slacker,

Let me say first that yes, you're being very respectful and I appreciate it. #I guess I'm particularly zealous on this matter for two reasons:

1) I actually do play in a trio with a CD out, and while I don't expect anyone to ever post it to Kazaa or any of the other file sharing services, I'd be outraged if they did because I'd have had something stolen from me (and my bandmates). #It doesn't matter to me that we produced 500 CD four years ago and still have nearly 200 of them left ... it's the principle that someone else would distribute -- without our express permission -- something that we worked for and we paid for. #The fact that the video in question is 15 years old and that it's possible that nobody's buying it now is beside the point. #Someone -- AKUS, Rounder Records, Sony, other -- produced the work in question and owns the rights to its distribution. #What appalled me in the original post was that (it certainly appeared as if) Nolan was saying that pulling something from YouTube because it's copyrighted is lame, and I just find that sort of thinking unbelievable. #My guess is that people who feel that way have never had anything stolen from them. #Either that, or they don't think it's possible to own something -- control of your own work -- that you can't hold in your hands. #I'll admit that even to me, it feels different if it's not tangible ... but that doesn't make it different. #They rationzalize their behavior with such nonsensical arguments as "Nobody owns the arts; they're there to be spread and enjoyed" or "Nobody wants to buy this anyway" or "I took this with own camera that I sneaked into the show, so nobody can tell me I can't post it". #But the fact is that if it were their art and their distribution rights, they'd feel very different about it.

2) I believe the law is the law. #There are times when I think the law is wrong, but that doesn't give me the right to violate it. #As I wrote earlier, if you don't like it, then work to change it. #But you don't get to go around picking and choosing which laws you're going to obey and which you're going to disregard.

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

Don Smith

PS The consumer is allowed to remove the label, I don't know the zoning board codes on fences and I don't run red lights. # # #

Don - Fair enough. You seem to have thought out this whole thing very well. While I don't expect to change your mind, nor do I entirely wish to do so, please allow me to give you another perspective on file-sharing/piracy.

I can tell you this for absolute certain; file-sharing has made my life so much more rich, when it comes to the arts. Without it I would have NEVER been turned on to bluegrass, celtic and other world music styles, etc.

Here's an example: A few years ago this guy at work burned me a copy of some band named "Nickel Creek". I had never heard of them and would otherwise have never listend to their music (I don't listen to the radio).

I listened to it....and LOVED it! After that I went and PURCHASED the next Nickel Creek CD, as well as one of Thile's solo records. In this case (and there have been MANY more in my life), music piracy, while it lost Nickel Creek one CD sale, gained them 1 and gained Thile 1 as well.

One of my favorite things to do is to go my public library and check out new music. I get turned on to SO MANY new artists this way, that otherwise I'd have never even considered spending my money on. But after I'm familiar with them, I end up buying some of their stuff in the future, as well as ticket sales when they come through town.

I got turned on to Tommy Emmanuel the same way, and have since been to 4 of his concerts and bought some of his product at every show.

The list goes on....but you get the idea. Music piracy, in my opinion, sells more music than it steals. Plus, my tax dollars allow me the use of the public library stock, which in turn, spreads more art/culture/education abroad, which is what Ben Franklin had in mind when he created the public library system in the first place.

If I had my own band, I personally would not care if someone ripped my CDs. I'd know that in reality, they are actually selling my act, since I'd be getting exposure that I otherwise would not.

Just my perspective, Don.

[Paul Kotapish]

An evergreen debate.

It could very well be that some pirated music (video, tab, transcriptions, etc.) results in a net gain for some artists, but I think you'd have a hard time proving the rule for all artists.

And that arguement, while useful, perhaps, to justify one's own behaviour while flouting the law, is largely irrelevant to many artists, who simply want to control their own artistic output, regardless of the ultimate economic consequences.

There are plenty of folks who choose to give it away. The Dead fostered a taping culture that seems to have worked to their advantage over the years, for example, and many others have emulated this model. Slacker, I gather, will follow in these footsteps, if and when he gets it together to make some recordings of his own. Other artists--Dylan, for example--are fierce about trying to maintain control over their performances.

Both positions are entirely reasonable, in my view. What is entirely unreasonable is the expectation that because most of us now have ready access to the tools to disperse music for free, the artists making the music should just shut up and allow it to happen with no complaint.

[Tim]

The issue isn't whether Don turns himself in if he commits those offenses. The inconsistency would be if he tried to justify breaking those laws.

[Nolan]

What I think is unreasonable is MartinD GibsonsAs responses. #
Don, you sure assumed #a lot from my posts. #You assumed I was to blame for posting some video on YOUTUBE.
You assumed I was saying I thought copyright laws were lame. #You said my statements were stupid and basically called me a thief. #I resent that.

Your cracker jack judgment of the situation was entirely off-base and your responses were made with little respect for anyone here on the café IMO. #

QUOTE:
"My guess is that people who feel that way have never had anything stolen from them. Either that, or they don't think it's possible to own something -- control of your own work -- that you can't hold in your hands. I'll admit that even to me, it feels different if it's not tangible ... but that doesn't make it different. They rationzalize their behavior with such nonsensical arguments as "Nobody owns the arts; they're there to be spread and enjoyed" or "Nobody wants to buy this anyway" or "I took this with own camera that I sneaked into the show, so nobody can tell me I can't post it". But the fact is that if it were their art and their distribution rights, they'd feel very different about it."
End:

There are lots of guys on the cafe who record music and have something "Tangible". #Heck, I'm a nobody in the music world but I've been in some bands and recorded CDs that we've sold. #We never really come out financially on the projects but it's fun. #I even got to do some music for a major motion picture. #I bought the DVD too so I can give it to my kids when I'm gone. #So yes, I do have something that is tangible and I have had many things stolen from me by the way. #Have I had any music copied without my permission? #I don't know, I hope I have. #Based on my experience it will help promote my music. #But that's just my opinion. #Based on the topic of this thread it would seem to be true… at least if the video was available to purchase. #

I'd like to make one thing crystal clear. I started this thread to find out where I could get that video.
That's it. #I liked it, now it's gone. #There's no need to read into my intent any farther.

PS the word is "rationalize"

[MartinD_GibsonA]

What I think is unreasonable is MartinD GibsonsAs responses.

You have as much right to hold your opinion as I do mine; I have no quarrel with that.

You assumed I was to blame for posting some video on YOUTUBE.

Incorrect -- it was clear to me that you found the video on YouTube. #I never thought otherwise, nor did I even infer that you posted it, or at least I didn't mean to infer that.

You assumed I was saying I thought copyright laws were lame.

Not quite -- your statement seemed to me to be that you thought YouTube's removing the video over copyright was lame. #Not quite the same, but close enough that I'll admit to the charge.

You said my statements were stupid

Actually, I said one statement was stupid, but yes, that's the word I used.

and basically called me a thief

Again, incorrect. #You were quite clear in asking if anyone knew where you could buy the video and I recognized that. #It was also clear that you hadn't simply ripped the video from the Web site or you wouldn't have been asking about buying it. #So no, I didn't call you a thief and never thought you to be one.

We never really come out financially on the projects but it's fun.

Nor have we and yes it is.

I even got to do some music for a major motion picture.

I got to do a CD for a compilation project, but a movie is more impressive ... congratulations.

I bought the DVD too so I can give it to my kids when I'm gone.

I'm sure they'll treasure it.

Have I had any music copied without my permission? #I don't know, I hope I have. #Based on my experience it will help promote my music.

And this is where we differ, Nolan. #I don't want my music stolen, nor do I want anyone else's stolen either. #If someone chooses to give away his work, great. #But it has to be the decision of the rightful owner. #Even though you say you wouldn't mind, it still rankles me on a very visceral level that someone would copy your music without permission. #So am I outraged for you? #Yes I am. #You're a fellow musician and I don't want to see ANY fellow musician taken advantage of, whether it bothers them or not. #Why? #Because the person who steals your work has no idea whether it bothers you or not; they simply want it and want to share it with others without having any thought of you whatsoever. #The fact that it doesn't bother you is no excuse for them to do it in the first place. #So while you may have less than a stellar opinion of me, I'd be the first in line to cry "FOUL" and fight for you if you were the victim of theft ... and that's exactly what unauthorized distribution is!

the word is "rationalize"

I know ... typo and poor proofreading.

Don Smith

[MartinD_GibsonA]

I can tell you this for absolute certain; file-sharing has made my life so much more rich, when it comes to the arts. Without it I would have NEVER been turned on to bluegrass, celtic and other world music styles, etc. #

Here's an example: #A few years ago this guy at work burned me a copy of some band named "Nickel Creek". #I had never heard of them and would otherwise have never listend to their music (I don't listen to the radio). #

I listened to it....and LOVED it! #After that I went and PURCHASED the next Nickel Creek CD, as well as one of Thile's solo records. In this case (and there have been MANY more in my life), music piracy, while it lost Nickel Creek one CD sale, gained them 1 and gained Thile 1 as well.

Music piracy, in my opinion, sells more music than it steals.

Slacker -- I understand your viewpoint perfectly; now let me ask you a few questions ...

So file-sharing has made your life so much more rich? #OK, suppose instead of a burned CD, your colleague had given you a jar of caviar that he told you he shoplifted from the gourmet foods store. #Would you have eaten the caviar, found it to be wonderful (Well, some people think it is -- I hate the stuff!) and now gushed about how you've been turned on to world of exquisite foods? #Would you be talking about how much more caviar, escargot and other delicacies you've since bought? #The bottom line is that you started with stolen goods. #You see, there's really no difference between the jar of caviar and that CD. #Someone else owns it and you aren't entitled to it without compensation to the rightful owner. #

Did you like the burned CD enough to want to keep it? #If so, did you then buy a legal copy of it? #If not, did you return it to your colleague since you had no legal right to the music on it? #If you kept it for your own use but #didn't buy one, then no matter how much else you may have bought since, you've still stolen one CD. #(Note -- This is why I don't burn CDs for friends. #If I've got something I want them to hear, I lend them the CD and tell them I expect that they won't copy it. #If they do it anyway, then it's on them ... it's not on me.)

Finally, even if music piracy sells more than it steals -- and I'd like to know where you get the facts to support that statement -- there's still stealing involved. #Calling it file-sharing doesn't change what it is.

Don Smith

[MartinD_GibsonA]

It could very well be that some pirated music (video, tab, transcriptions, etc.) results in a net gain for some artists, but I think you'd have a hard time proving the rule for all artists.

And that arguement, while useful, perhaps, to justify one's own behaviour while flouting the law, is largely irrelevant to many artists, who simply want to control their own artistic output, regardless of the ultimate economic consequences.

Paul -- Thank you.

Don Smith

[Caleb]

Don - Your questions are valid, and I guess if the bottom line is black and white, then so be it and I'm a thief if that's the case. I will not attempt to rationalize the moral end of it, nor did I try to make it a moral argument, but more of a practical one.

I guess I don't see the damage done by me getting a copy of Nickel Creek's CD, to later on become a fan (by the way, I'm listening to that original ripped CD as I type this - great stuff). I have invested money in their craft that I otherwise never would have. They ended up winning, and so did I. I have learned of so many other artists this way as well, artists that I'm now a fan of that I otherwise would not have been. But I suppose we've been down that road before in this thread.

Here's the way I see it: It is art and it will get out...it was meant to get out...you can't cage it like a pet. That's the way art was meant to be, in my view. Back in the day people wrote songs because they loved it, today it's like everything else - it's about the money. Lots of old songs that we all know and love are now "public domain". I'm not saying that all art should be public domain, but we have to deal with the realities that technology have brought us; music is being copied at a rapid pace and will only continue. It's one of the monsters that technology has created. Back in the 80's when kids were holed up in their bedrooms making "mix tapes" for their friends nobody cared. There was not one word about these issues, yet the VERY SAME THING was happening. It is only technology caught up with the record companies that it mattered. So, in some ways, the morality of the whole thing is situational, and based only on dollars. How telling of our day.

I guess it could be argued all day long on both sides. I'll keep burning music no matter what though.